locomotivefandomcom-20200222-history
Locomotive Wiki:Scrapyard/London tube station articles
A resolution was established, and the article was }} This page is now archived. Do not edit the text here. Create a new discussion instead. Closed by Starfleet Academy (talk) 08:42, November 4, 2013 (UTC) Category:Scrapyard nominations archive The are up for discussion per the deletion policy. Articles Nominated *Waterloo *Paddington *Canada Water *Charing Cross *Bank\ Monument *Exeter St Davids *Exeter St Thomas Rationale The articles aren't really within the scope of LW. The PROD failed, so I'm placing it here. The Rules page states that: If any article were to contain any information that didn't involve any information about a locomotive or focus on a locomotive; like tracks, signals, or bridges; it will be deleted or edited! (Routes are acceptable)! My argument is that stations can be grouped in with tracks, signals and bridges. They aren't routes, and they should be merged into the applicable line. The user who created these pages has been told about this before. 08:08, October 20, 2013 (UTC) Discussion Merge (all) with London Underground, and redirect. Firstly, I would like to point out that this edit summary is a quote of mine, not the rules page. It is also a misquote, I originally said, “You see articles solely on railway lines, stations, bridges etc. aren't accepted on Locomotive Wiki.” This is from the link that J gave. This content issue is going to be a touchy subject until we write something a lot better than the rules page for covering content. Starfleet Academy (Messages) 09:36, October 20, 2013 (UTC) :Addenda: Before anybody gets disappointed, I must also point out that there is some serious ambiguity in that discussion. Post #2 has a question listing a bunch of stations and the trains, asking whether they all can stay. For some strange reason, I have absolutely no idea why, I reply with, “Oh, yes, of course those can stay. It's just that this site is focused on the vehicles.” This is confused dribble. I was saying yes to the trains, but I neglected to say anything about the stations. I think this is the rub, so that's my fault. :Also, it should be noted that the key word in the rules is "like": “If any article were to contain any information that didn't involve any information about a locomotive or focus on a locomotive; '''like' tracks, signals, or bridges; it will be deleted or edited! (Routes are acceptable)!”'' This is an important detail that may have been missed. Starfleet Academy (Messages) 11:04, October 20, 2013 (UTC) ::I would just like to point out that there is no reason why we shouldn't keep the Exeter ststions, them not being un the london underground, and also that I see no reason why we shouldn't have articles about station, them being the partial focus of uor wiki. I don't want an argument, but to me I don't understand what is probably a perfectly legit point of veiw. ::Also, another part of the rules states that stations are acceptible; You see articles solely on railway lines, stations, bridges etc. ::Kerry Stapleton (talk) :::Comment:The Exeter stations should be merged in with the First Great Western article, then. I'm not meaning to offend here, I'm simply stating that this is Locomotive wiki, and is more suited to articles on Locomotives. The thing is that if you create an article on every single railway station on the London tube or operated by a certain company, it gets very messy very fast on a wiki where they aren't suited for. The quote that you are using is not actually from the rules page, it's a quote by Starfleet Academy, which you've taken out of context (and removed the sense) by lopping off the end. The full sentence is You see articles solely on railway lines, stations, bridges etc. aren't accepted on Locomotive Wiki, which contradicts what you're trying to say. The fact is, that articles on every station are better suited for a London tube wiki or UK railway stations wiki where people would expect to find that information. (e.g. If I wanted to read about Central station Sydney, I'd go to the NSW Trains Wiki before LW, because it is more logical) 08:01, October 21, 2013 (UTC) ::::Now this is sticky, because I came hoping to make articles on the tube and UK stations ect, but I don't want to quit this wiki, because I like it, but I can't stay either with my current perspective. So i don't know what to do. i prefered it when you didn't mind me making these articles, as they aren';t doin' no harm. I am fine with the tube station thing though. :::::I have to say that I agree with the merging/deletion of station articles. The point that concerns me is that we don't want anybody coming in and adding a station article, only to be told they're breaking the rules, aft which they will probably get upset over and leave the wiki. I think it should be clear that we are locomotive wiki, about locomotives and only locomotives. At least, for now, but under no circumstance can I see us making enou progress covering locomotives to have the room to start covering all of railroading. We couldn't possibly provide enoug detail over such a broad spectrum. AltoonaRailfan (talk) 19:41, October 21, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Now Kerry, you don't have to quit the wiki, in fact, quite the contrary. When the station articles are merged, you can put all the information in subheadings on the page about the lines (because routes are acceptable). (e.g. if Foo Station was on the bar line, you would create a subheading on bar line called "foo" (under a stations subheading). It's more that the content is in the wrong place, than the content is not allowed. 20:44, October 21, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Bingo! don't delete them yet though, I need to cut and paste info from them. I spose this is our consensus, then. Kerry Stapleton (talk) Comment: I find it very sad, Kerry, that a lack of information when you joined has caused you to feel forced out. This is not what any of us here wants. However, we have to keep some order on this website. And we have to maintain perspective; near where I live, there is the Yarra Valley (the wine making area of Victoria). There used to be two branch lines that ran through this area years ago while it was under control of Victorian Railways. Only one still exists and is now abandoned, its stations also. It would take a day to go and photograph all those lovely, quintessentially Aussie buildings and load them up on LW with articles to match. I don't because many are not much more than a ticket office and a public toilet. This begs the question, how do we stop all those type of stations but allow the... the... um...? Yup, that's right. "Better" is not a definition of notability. Equally, it's a domino effect as Jacob pointed out. Eventually the wiki would cease to be about locomotives and would be on everything. However, I have changed my opinion on the amount of information we should allow on stations. Since the rules page says, If any article were to contain any information that didn't involve any information about a locomotive ... it will be deleted or edited! Overkill notwithstanding, this allows all sorts of "legal" loopholes. I'd suggest making the subsections cover the important bits while being succinct. It's the accumulation of off-topic, or rather off-focus, information that is the concern here. Since things seem to have been sorted out, I'll close this discussion in a few days unless there's further discussion. The articles will stay in place until all the information is moved satisfactorily. Starfleet Academy (Messages) 06:51, October 22, 2013 (UTC)